About your Search

Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
at some point. the loss of credibility for ten years, it is unacceptable in the u.n. cannot define what you mean by unacceptable. those will be what will have to be applied. >> let me ask you two other questions, one narrow and won broad. >> fight that battle over whether we can negotiate or not. because we come to the point of what to do about the program and we need to demonstrate a level to find a diplomatic solution. >> negotiation -- [talking over each other] >> we cannot afford open-ended negotiation. >> the negotiation of some kind is necessary. >> whichever option you favor. this >> let me go northwest to syria. syria was discussed in the presidential campaign but the more it was discussed there and less difference there seemed to be between the two candidate. it came down to should we be arming the opposition? let me ask that question in a broader context? should we are mccumber opposition and whenever answer to that question is what is the strategic approach to the syrian conflict that preserves or protect american interests at this stage? >> let me begin and that end. the ame
important element, the u.n. dimension: respect for the territorial integrity and independence of iraq. so that meant that the action team could not go to nondeclared facilities. only delareed facilities could be -- declared facilities could be inspected. but then the security council formed out that right to, i would say, break the integrity to the -- [inaudible] so they were charged with nondeclared facilities and activities. of course, then it was, obviously, chemical, biological. but the beauty of these wars that it's tough sanctions system was in place. we have to have that also. but immediately when the inspection started, the sanction system was gradually released. so this was a functioning system, good behavior led also to these single sanctions. bad behavior, which happened, of course, quite frequently, some blockages and refusals, was met by some tough language from the security council. not from the israeli government or anyone, it was security council under the charter of the united nations that put that pressure. so, of course, we know that this system works extremely well. it
've heard, seen perhaps more cyberattacks that are maybe something like an armed attack under the u.n. charter. conceivably i suppose even an act of war, though that is a debatable point as to whether we've seen anything like that to date. i have put a few terms of the things that are really. computer network attack, as we've been talking up, computer network exploitation is basically efforts to infiltrate a computer network for any other purpose i just described. so maybe some sort of armed attack. maybe it's for criminal activities and you're hoping to be surreptitious about what you can. maybe it's her espionage and then you're hoping to be surreptitious. cite a few examples of how these concepts and relate to one another. and how come if you are in the business of computer network defense, you are trying to defend networks at your company but if you're looking at this from a policy perspective for the united states, for example, how vulnerable is the united states, how vulnerable is our critical infrastructure and nuclear power plants, things like that. you quickly see that an inf
their leader and needed help to do it and went to the u.n. to get that help. >> there were large numbers of iraqis that would have liked him overthrown -- >> there's a much more sectarian situation. >> sure it was. >> and libya was not a sectarian situation. so if you had a situation where you had support with the vast majority of the people, and you had u.n. backing so there was no way it could be tarred as a u.s.-alone, imperialistic attack to try to scoop up natural resources for yourself and cause blowback, then, yes -- >> i have seen this movie before, and hearing this talk about, oh, yeah, we're not going to bring in the exiles, and we're going to pick legitimate people in the country, and tom friedman backs it up. please. i saw it the first time. you guys were all in school the first time, but even there you probably got the idea that it didn't work out so hot. let's just let things happen the way they're going to -- let other people worry about their own countries. we have enough problems in this country. >> jim, did you have -- [applause] >> yeah. no, that's fairly similar to my
in syria. we've seen three security council vetoes by russia and china causing many to call the u.n., essentially, ineffective in this crisis. so it's been the interplay of these three factors, i would argue, that has led syria down the path that it has taken. in terms of u.s. policy, u.s. policy is based on the objective of having assad, as president obama called for, step aside. this was back in august of 2011. the problem with u.s. policy is that it has continually been at conflict with itself in terms of how to achieve that objective while also achieving or protecting u.s. national security interests in the region. namely, i would argue, very understandable concerns about, about the impact of unseating assad and the potential for massive instability across the region. so at the crux of u.s. policy on syria, i would argue, has resided this tension of wanting assad to go but being concerned and fearful about how to achieve that objective while also seeking to maintain stability in such a volatile region of the world. now, the debate right now on syria is focused largely on this qu
in north korea. but there is another possibility, and there are already some signs that kim young un's effort to to -- remember him appearing with his wife at some kind of cultural event, and they had figures that sort of looked like mickey and minnie mouse. and when i saw that i said, hey, that's ping-pong diplomacy in a new guise. i think an equally likely outcome maybe in the short run is that kim jong un's effort to really bring about change is going to run into tremendous pushback from elements of the military who are not prepared to live with the consequences of that change. is and you could see an internal implosion. so i agree with chris hill that watch north korea. >> yes, okay. >> when you come last, there's not many surprises left. [laughter] i agree by definition, t hard to define it. first, we've got to have some sort of disagreement, so i will be surprised if we have a burma in north korea. i won't get into detail, we want to get to your questions. the trouble with talking to the chinese, they won't talk to us. and as kurt knows, it's too sensitive to talk about conting
successor to joe, mr. un, currently minister of public security, is now filling that spot. well, that creates some awkward problems, because it's a new shift in political/legal relations. it raises, first of all, how will the standing committee, the charmed seven, keep track of what the political/legal commission is up to? are they going to have a watchdog? who is it going to be? from one point of view, you could argue that the very capable person who's been put in charge of the party discipline and inspection commission -- some people wrongly think that's a demotion away from his economic responsibilities, i think that's a mistake. he is a highly intelligent, very capable men, well qualified to deal with the immense problem of corruption among the chinese business elite and their relation to government. but you could argue because the discipline and inspection commission is so intimately connected to the legal system even though it precedes the legal system, it's not part of the government, that one could take that brief of watching the political/legal position on. but i think
and that will be at a time when the afghan government is in full control of its own sovereignty. the current u.n. security council resolution basis for the current operation will come to an end. you'll need a newly legal basis for the new operation. who would enforce agreements for the 1940s and the north atlantic council is just engaging with the afghan government on what the shape of that mission would be. so there's a mixture of conditions based in the implementation and then there is the beginning of the negotiation about what the next mission will be. but as i said, it will not be a combat mission. the wellbutrin advisory mission, which is part of the long-term commitment of the international community to afghanistan way out over the transformation decade of the tokyo summit this summer. so there's going be amick shared in a fact, military capability building. but the international community and a much broader sense is doing for the very substantial problems of quality develop and comment governments in afghanistan and the individual countries like our own are doing in bilateral programs, which is pa
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8